/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18135789]

>You just don't get it bro, your shit is not real philosophy, it is semi-philosophy because it lacks reason, it's just your opinion, mine is actual philosophy because my opinion is actual reason.
Did he create gate keeping and buzzwording? I fucking kneel.

[Anonymous No.18135802]

>>18135789
It's not that these things are "not real philosophy" but that they were also insufficient, proven only retrospectively by their definitive disintegration within time

[Anonymous No.18135879]

>>18135802
>It's not that these things are "not real philosophy"
He literally calls it a "half philosophy" or a "semi philosophy", depending where you read it.
>but that they were also insufficient, proven only retrospectively by their definitive disintegration within time
Any theory is proven like that, maybe less, in terms of time, in a natural or a "hard" science, but still. I fell that he is too set on wanting to treat philosophy as a hard science, when it is literally just opinions and ideas.

[Anonymous No.18136545]

I'm assuming this had no editor, right? It feels at the same time intentionally vague and convoluted, like a high school writer showing of rather than trying to communicate, while also actually just being bad writing.

There are continual trainwrecks of run on sentences with clauses piling up into ambiguous disasters. Maybe it's better in the original? Because some of the sentences are straight up grammatically incorrect, and I have to assume they are that way because that's how the original was written.

It's frustrating because the book is full of these brilliant insights and absolutely perfect analytical sentences every page or so, but in between it goes off the rails again.

It's almost like he wrote the thing by hand in one go, at a hurried pace, and then said "yup, good to go."

[Anonymous No.18136554]

>>18136545
filtered by grammar

[Anonymous No.18136574]

>>18136545
pinkard translation reads better

[Anonymous No.18136590]

>>18136554
The most common problem is the pile up of clauses that are ambiguous as to what they are modifying, but there are a few in the old translation I have that have straight up grammatically incorrect structure, like missing commas between disconnected clauses.

A lot of the clauses don't even refer to anything, but are the type of filler you'd put in as you spoke to give yourself time to think. It's the literary equivalent of "ummm, ummm."

[Anonymous No.18136596]

Can anyone explain me Hegel’s antifoundationism?

[Anonymous No.18136606]

>>18136545
You're correct. Hegel was aware of this. Hegel was forced to finish the book in great haste because his friend Friedrich Immanuel Niethammer had promised to pay the publisher’s costs if he failed to supply the completed manuscript by 18 October 1806. As Hegel was rushing to meet this obligation, Napoleon moved to capture Jena, and Hegel
entrusted part of the manuscript to a courier who rode through French lines to the publisher in Bamberg. Although he completed the manuscript (except the Preface) the night before the battle for the city, he did not dare to send the last instalment, and so missed his deadline. So it's questionable to what extent we can presume this is how Hegel intended to have his work published. His other works, while still difficult due to their ambition and content, are much clearer

[Anonymous No.18136620]

>>18136545
You're correct. Hegel was aware of this. Hegel was forced to finish the book in great haste because his friend Friedrich Immanuel Niethammer had promised to pay the publisher’s costs if he failed to supply the completed manuscript by 18 October 1806. As Hegel was rushing to meet this obligation, Napoleon moved to capture Jena, and Hegel entrusted part of the manuscript to a courier who rode through French lines to the publisher in Bamberg. Although he completed the manuscript (except the Preface) the night before the battle for the city, he did not dare to send the last instalment, and so missed his deadline. So it's questionable to what extent we can presume this is how Hegel intended to have his work published. His other works, while still difficult due to their ambition and content, are much clearer

[Anonymous No.18136868]

>>18136620
Good to know. Thanks.

Should I be starting with another work? I had thought this was the main work, but that's how people describe Also Spake Zarathustra, and DESU I found it to be among the least engaging works by Nietzsche.

I nabbed the old translation for $5 after trying to listen to it and being intrigued, but realizing it's not the type of work you can listen to. It was like trying to listen in Arabic, which I speak very haltingly, even when I slowed it down.

[Anonymous No.18136910]

>>18136545
>I'm assuming this had no editor, right?
Literally yes. He had to write it at breakneck speed due to debt problems, and due to the fact that the Napoleonic army was getting closer and closer to Jena and he did not expect to survive it (in fact he survived it by pure accident, since a cannon ball destroyed his apartment as he was out for a walk). He was still satisfied of the content of the book, but he was absolutely dissatisfied with its presentation (for obvious reasons)
His later texts (with the exception of the Encyclopedia, which was meant as a textbook for his own lectures) are much easier. The Science of Logic is still complex (insofar as you need to keep in mind a lot in order to not lose the general picture of the system), but it is perfectly readable and intelligible, and, more importantly, it is neatly subdivided in short paragraphs. His Lectures are even easier, to the point where even freshmen can read and understand them.
More in general, the Phenomenology is not representative of Hegel's skill as a writer. Unfortunately he died as he was preparing a revised second edition, so we're stuck with it.

My advice, if you're interested in Hegelian philosophy, is to keep struggling until you get it. The rest of his texts are significantly easier, and won't require as much work. Also keep in mind that the first part of the PhG, up to the end of the section on Reason, is the hardest part. What comes after is easier, mostly because there he deals with themes you might be familiar with (the French Revolution, Art, Religion, etc). The first part is instead very technical, and deals with an host of very technical and complex theories you might not be familiar with (Kantian idealism, Jacobi's philosophy of immediacy, Fichte's subjective idealism, Schelling's philosophy of nature, Leibniz' theory of dynamics, and so on)

[Anonymous No.18136946]

>>18135789
I cant stand people that say opinion unironically. It's almost as bad as people who say 'free speech'

[Anonymous No.18136980]

>>18136620
>>18136910
I love these dramatized stories of him finishing it in the midst of battle

[Anonymous No.18136988]

is it possible to post emojis here

[Anonymous No.18136994]

>>18136988
no

[Anonymous No.18137094]

>>18136980
He literally did

[Anonymous No.18137160]

>>18136910
Thank you for writing this. I'm making my way through the Phenomenology right now and though I'm enjoying it, I'm in the middle of the part on Force and Understanding and it's a little rough. Good to know it gets a little less technical later on.

[Anonymous No.18137178]

>>18135789
idk man, but he was a wino, and back when people washed themselves like twice a year, so he likely always stank of vomit, piss, shit and lard
still very healthy compared to today

[Anonymous No.18137196]

>>18137160
Lucky for you. I'm still struggling in the preface.

I already made it through Jung, the Gnostics, Plato, intro level Zen books, The Book of the Dead, and some of the Hermetic books and the Zohar.

I'm hoping that once I finish these I can finally understand the endongs pic related and Neon Genesis Evangelion, the Phenomenology of Spirit of anime and vidya respectively.

[Anonymous No.18138339]

>>18136946
Nice opinion.
>>18137178
So he not only invented gate keeping and buzzwording but was also a filthy drunk? He literally was the first anon.
>>18136545
>There are continual trainwrecks of run on sentences with clauses piling up into ambiguous disasters.
>Because some of the sentences are straight up grammatically incorrect, and I have to assume they are that way because that's how the original was written.
My exact feeling while reading it, but I have understood that his Encyclopedia Of The Philosophical Sciences is like an "easier", maybe, version of his whole philosophy, included the Phenomenology Of The Spirit.
>Intended as a pedagogical aid for attendees of his lectures, Hegel revised and extended the Encyclopedia over more than a decade, but stressed its role as a "textbook" in need of elucidation through oral commentary.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Philosophical_Sciences